Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[allhailIndia]

1 death is a tragedy...a million a statistic... (Iosef Stalin)...

Ultimately we have reduced the debate on Communism and Capitalism to statistics of dead people

 

[Yom]

To point a small flaw in the "brilliant" plan of Comrade Stalin in achieving such fantastic growth for the Soviet economy, ..he slaughtered 5 million people to do it
The population figures had dropped so drastically that Stalin refused to allow their publication. Even the Nazis were kinder on the Russian people..they killed only 2.5 million or so

I don't think the 5 million statistic is accurate. More than that many died under Stalin's rule, yes, but most of them died because of purges and the like, not the actual feat of industrialization. Akka also correctly pointed out that Hitler killed more than 2.5 million Russians.

 

[Birdjaguar]

One more thing:
There is much more to economic growth than merely "liberalising" the economy. In fact, most countries achieve rapid economic growth through active government intervention in creating a positive environment for businesses. Look at South Korea, Germany, Japan, the Industrial Revolution.

Which communism doesn't do. At the end of the day though, its individual initiative that drives innovation and growth. And that process begins and ends with "what's in it for me".

 

[Birdjaguar]

Frankly, I never claimed my version of Communism would be utopic, just that it would work, and we would all enjoy the same standard of living as we do in the West right now.

I like your honesty, no pretense of even trying to be a benevolent dictator, just "do it my way or die". Welcome to 1984. I'm not sure we need more of that type running things.

 

[sebanaj]

Both systems base on explotation, just changing the actors.
On one side: one massive actor, an state enterprise in soviet communism, leading the second and third sectors, with an small private not capitalist economy in the primary sector which includes a not capitalist little market, local, not expansive nor intensive.
On the other side: the private capitalists in a capitalist economy.

Alienation exists in both.

 

[Mise]

Which communism doesn't do. At the end of the day though, its individual initiative that drives innovation and growth. And that process begins and ends with "what's in it for me".

I never claimed that Communism could do that either. All I claimed was that there was a economic system based on equal distribution of wealth that would sustain the standard of living we are currently enjoying. We haven't seen such growth as in SK, Germany, Japan, or the Ind Rev for a long time now. Frankly, good growth is ~3% or so. So it's not like Capitalism does that either...

Look at East Asian growth -- that was hardly a score for laissez faire capitalism. It wasn't in any way shape or form "laissez faire".

A developing country has to rely on individual initiative and entrepreneurship, but an industrialised nation already has an established industrial base. So growth these days comes from innovation. Under my communism, the incentive is still profit. Lets say a manufacturing company has demand for X units at $Y each. If the company finds a way to produce those X units more efficiently, the company can make a profit. The company can use the profit to:
(a) Buy more machinery, workers, raw materials, thereby increasing the number of units produced, further increasing profits
(b) Sell the units at a cheaper price $(Y - dY)
(c) Reduce the number of hours of the workers, or otherwise improve worker welfare
(d) Develop more efficient manufacturing processes

Option (a) may not be a good short term investment, since there is only demand for X units, but extra production capabilities might come in useful if demand increases in the future. Options (b) and (c) would increase the standard of living of the workers. Option (d) would allow future growth for the company. All of the options are manifestations of economic growth, and the effect is to increase the GDP of the country.

Under capitalism, there would be an option (e) which is to distribute the wealth among the owners of the company. Although this would also result in GDP growth, its social consequences are undesirable.

You're probably wondering where this innovation is supposed to come from. It comes from the same place innovation comes from under capitalism -- the company employs people to make improvements on their manufacturing processes or product designs.

So really, it's the same old story of Capitalism, because the rules of economics haven't changed. All that's changed are the tax rates.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Under capitalism, there would be an option (e) which is to distribute the wealth among the owners of the company. Although this would also result in GDP growth, its social consequences are undesirable.

No system can avoid undesireable social consequences. You'll just trade one set of social problems for another and reduce freedom at the same time. Freedom is more important than enforced equality of lifestyle.

You're probably wondering where this innovation is supposed to come from. It comes from the same place innovation comes from under capitalism -- the company employs people to make improvements on their manufacturing processes or product designs.

You really don't understand people or what motivates them. The 80/20 rule probably applies here. 80% of the changes and innovations come from 20% of the people. When you stiffle their freedom to create and make changes that benefit many, by taking away pesonal reward, they will not produce new cool stuff. You can't whip them into doing so. They will apply their ingenuity towards revolution. And then where will you be?

 

[Colonel]

Simple explanation. No true form of government works. Democracy doesnt work without Republic and Communism will not work without Democracy. Introduce a system where in the people elect their leaders but still live and work in a Communist society with a Socialist economy. So if you have a Democratic Communist state it will work. Simple as that.

 

[Mise]

No system can avoid undesireable social consequences. You'll just trade one set of social problems for another and reduce freedom at the same time. Freedom is more important than enforced equality of lifestyle.

I see freedom as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

You really don't understand people or what motivates them. The 80/20 rule probably applies here. 80% of the changes and innovations come from 20% of the people. When you stiffle their freedom to create and make changes that benefit many, by taking away pesonal reward, they will not produce new cool stuff. You can't whip them into doing so. They will apply their ingenuity towards revolution. And then where will you be?

I don't believe that for one minute. I don't believe that innovation comes from purely selfish efforts. You just have to look at University science and technology departments to realise that there are thousands and thousands of intelligent people willing to sacrifice personal gain for the a common goal. Indeed, most technological advances come from poorly funded University research.

I don't believe the capitalist mentality that people only do things for selfish reasons. I think it's a self fulfilling prophecy -- if you believe that other people are selfish then you are more inclined to act selfish yourself. Ask the average Joe Windowcleaner why he does what he does - he'll say it's for his family or something, not because if he doesn't he'll feel upset...

I don't believe that this system "stifles creativity" any more than capitalism does. It's hard to create when you're crippled by poverty. There's a wealth of creativity being stifled by a system which keeps the poor in poverty in the name of freedom and personal rewards.

And besides, like I said, people are still employed to come up with new ideas. They don't come up with a good idea? They get fired. Like it is now, actually....

I also don't think I understand that 80/20 thing... what's that got to do with it?

(Incidentally, I also never claimed that communism would grow at the same rate as in the West, just that the standard of living would remain as it is in the West.)

 

[Amenhotep7]

^Human nature in this society would make pure communism fail. If humans change, which we slowly are, we can get close enough to communism that it really matter.

Wrong. We are changing, of course. (Very, VERY slowly, mind you, but still changing nonetheless.) But we will never evolve into something capable of 'utopia'. Why?

Simply take a look at ALL of human history and natural history. Humans are naturally violent. (Refer to my thread: Do Humans in General Enjoy Bloodshed?) And this helps us, because it teaches us to fend for ourselves. It teaches us to conquer, or to be conquered. It taught our ancestors to either develop tactics to take down that wooly mammoth or to die slowly of starvation or freezing over the Ice Age winter.

It didn't end there. Bronze Age, Iron Age, Classical Age, the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the steps taken to try and stave-off the Black Plague by superstitous medieval European societies, slavery, the Early, High, and Late Eras of Medieval times, the Crusades, the age of colonization, the conquistadors, the Age of Imperialism, Napoleonic Era, the Age of Enlightenment, World Wars I and II, the Cold War and all wars taking place in it, and even to our modern times, this trend has not stopped.

One definition of insanity is "doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome". After all of our history of violence, do you truly believe that we are moving toward world peace?

And where did all of this come from? Competition. Survival of the fittest. From nature itself. Violence and war and imperfection are, unfortunately, forever ingrained in our minds. As long as man cares about his personal self, utopia or communism is NOT an attainable goal.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I also don't think I understand that 80/20 thing... what's that got to do with it?

The 80/20 rule is an excellent guide to many things. It is basically that 20% of some resource will produce 80% of the value. for example, 20% of your sales force will genrate 80% of your sales. 20% fo your customers will account for 80% of yor profits etc. You should focus on the few that are of the most value rather than the many that are less important.
What I was saying was that most significant changes and innovations in society come from a small minority of the people. If society is to progress in any way those people must have the freedom to act. The force to create change is very strong in such people and to suppress it is very difficult. They will want their reward. If you jsut want to be efficient, find a way to identify this 20% and turn them loose. The other 80% will follow and be quite content. Don't waste your time trying to make them into something they are not.

 

[Mise]

The 80/20 rule is an excellent guide to many things. It is basically that 20% of some resource will produce 80% of the value. for example, 20% of your sales force will genrate 80% of your sales. 20% fo your customers will account for 80% of yor profits etc. You should focus on the few that are of the most value rather than the many that are less important.
What I was saying was that most significant changes and innovations in society come from a small minority of the people. If society is to progress in any way those people must have the freedom to act. The force to create change is very strong in such people and to suppress it is very difficult. They will want their reward. If you jsut want to be efficient, find a way to identify this 20% and turn them loose. The other 80% will follow and be quite content. Don't waste your time trying to make them into something they are not.

Hmm I posted a reply I'm sure, but it didn't come up.

First, that's for explaining it, I think I understand....

What I don't understand is how my system will actually change anything. What more "freedom to act" do they want than choosing a career path? What more reward do they want than reduced working hours? (I remind you that instead of people being paid in wages for exceptional performance, they are "paid" in reduced working hours.)

Presumably, such people are identified by the market in capitalism. The same market is used to identify them in communism, only with different boundary conditions.

In addition, as I said before, more people will be allowed to be creative and innovative, since they are free from poverty. So even if the 20% is reduced to 1%, that's 1% of more people.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What more "freedom to act" do they want than choosing a career path? What more reward do they want than reduced working hours? (I remind you that instead of people being paid in wages for exceptional performance, they are "paid" in reduced working hours.)

Presumably, such people are identified by the market in capitalism. The same market is used to identify them in communism, only with different boundary conditions.

In addition, as I said before, more people will be allowed to be creative and innovative, since they are free from poverty. So even if the 20% is reduced to 1%, that's 1% of more people.

Freedom is all about making decisions. I don't want you or anyone else telling me to work less hours as some cheap reward. I want my value determined by the market and not by your system. I may want a bigger car or more money rather than shorter hours. You presume to know what everyone wants, and you don't. I might not want to live a fancy western lifestyle or I might want a second home at the beach. For some reason youseem to devalue the individual at the expense of the masses.

Freeing people from poverty is a wonderful goal, but you want to do it at the expense of everyone else regardless of whether or not they feel the same way you do. Why should your ideal world be mine? Especially when mine is much better than yours.

 

[cgannon64]

I didn't read it, but pages 2-5 were the same as page 1, right? Save me the time if they were.

 

[BasketCase]

I didn't get halfway through the first page in this thread before seeing the "that's not true Communism" and "that's not true Capitalism" remarks. If every failure of your favorite system is automatically "not really your system", then there's no point in a serious debate.

Which suits me just fine! Pointless arguing is fun too!

Communism doesn't work for two reasons: because it's only been tried a very few times, and because it's inherently contrary to human nature.

 

[MCHunter]

I would love to see a marxist country. Leninist Communism is mistaken for Marxist Communism way to often.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I would love to see a marxist country. Leninist Communism is mistaken for Marxist Communism way to often.

It's not possible to have such a thing as a marxist country, as marxism means absence of a centralized governing body or power of any kind. A marxist existance could never be called a country, or any sort of organization, for that matter.

 

[BasketCase]

Sure it could: that area of the map where there's no government would delineate the country pretty clearly.

 

[aneeshm]

I suppose Western Europe and in particular Scandinavia is a third world country now that the Socialists are in power

It takes time to destroy the wealth of a nation , Mise . See the looming pension crisis in the Scandy countries .

 

[Sims2789]

1 death is a tragedy...a million a statistic... (Iosef Stalin)...

Ultimately we have reduced the debate on Communism and Capitalism to statistics of dead people

Calling Stalin a communist is like calling me a religious zealot.